Article published in:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 6:3 (2015) ► pp. 398–420

The Complexity and Variability of Self-Deprecation in Korean Conversation

Drawing on a corpus of telephone conversational data, this study examines a collection of self-deprecations in Korean conversations. Detailed analyses of self-deprecations in larger fragments than minimal adjacency pair sequences illustrate the multifaceted nature of self-deprecation. Self-deprecation entails not only deprecatory assessments, but complaint or trouble talk about one’s shortcomings, reenactment of experiences or moments that support the deprecation, and discussion of how to remedy problems. The study further shows that self-deprecation is not a solitary but an interactionally organized practice. The speaker’s repeated self-deprecations elicit a series of different responses from the recipient, such as positive reframing, downgrading the deprecator’s problem, and recommending solutions to the deprecator’s problem. Many instances of self-deprecation suggest that it can be an important resource for building motivation, responsibility, and a sense of affiliation and solidarity with other social members.
Keywords: assessment, affiliation, sequences of talk, self-deprecation, Korean, preference structure, positive framing, reported thought
Published online: 28 September 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.3.04kim
References
Boxer, Diana, and Florencia Cortés-Conde
1997 “From Bonding to Biting: Conversational Joking and Identity Display.” Journal of Pragmatics271: 275–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H., and Richard J. Gerrig
1990 “Quotations as Demonstrations.” Language661: 764–805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clift, Rebecca
2007 “Getting There First: Non-Narrative Reported Speech in Interaction.” InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 120–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Couper-Kuhlen, Elizabeth
2007 “Assessing and Accounting.” InReporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, ed. byElizabeth Holt and Rebecca Clift, 81–119. Cambridge: 
Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2009 “A Sequential Approach to Affect: The Case of “Disappointment””. InTalk in Interaction: Comparative Dimensions, ed. byMarkku Haakana, Minna Laakso, and Jan Lindström, 94–123. Helsinki: Finnish Literature Society.Google Scholar
Haugh, Michael
2010 “Jocular Mockery, (Dis)Affiliation, and Face.” Journal of Pragmatics421: 2106–2119. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heritage, John, and Anna Lindström
2012 “Knowledge, Empathy, and Emotion in a Medical Encounter.” InEmotion in Interaction, ed. byAnssi Peräkylä and Marja-Leena Sorjonen, 256–273. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Holt, Elizabeth
1996 “Reporting on Talk: The Use of Direct Reported Speech in Conversation.” Research on Language and Social Interaction291: 219–245. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Gail
1988 “On the Sequential Organization of Troubles-Talk in Ordinary Conversation.” Social Problems351: 418–441. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyu-Hyun, and Suh Kyung-Hee
1996 “Dealing with Prior Talk: Discourse Connective in Korean Conversation.” Japanese/Korean Linguistics 5, ed. byNoriko Akatsuka, Shoichi Iwasaki, and Susan Strauss, 83–99. Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University, Center for the Study of Language and Information.Google Scholar
Ko, Eon-Suk, Na-Rae Han, Alexandra Caravan, and George Zipperlen
2003 Korean Telephone Conversations Speech. Philadelphia, Penna.: Linguistic Data Consortium.Google Scholar
Kupetz, Maxi
2014 “Empathy Displays as Interactional Achievements: Multimodal and Sequential Aspects.” Journal of Pragmatics611: 4–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N
1983 Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Norrick, Neal R
1993 Conversational Joking: Humor in Everyday Talk. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1984 “Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/Dispreferred Turn Shapes.” InStructures of Social Action, ed. byMaxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1986 “Extreme Case Formulations: A Way of Legitimizing Claims.” Human Studies91: 219–229. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey
1995 Lectures on Conversation (Vols. I and II1), ed. byGail Jefferson, introduction by Emanuel A. Schegloff. Oxford: Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schnurr, Stephanie, and Angela Chan
2011 “When Laughter Is Not Enough: Responding to Teasing and Self-Denigrating Humour at Work.” Journal of Pragmatics431: 20–35. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Speer, Susan
2012 “The Interactional Organization of Self-Praise: Epistemics, Preference Organization, and Implications for Identity Research.” Social Psychology Quarterly751: 52–79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stivers, Tanya
2008 “Stance, Alignment, and Affiliation during Storytelling.” Research on Language and Social Interaction411: 31–57. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
1994 Talking from 9 to 5. New York: William Morrow.Google Scholar
Vásquez, Camilla, and Alfredo Urzúa
2009 “Reported Speech and Reported Mental State in Mentoring Meetings: Exploring Novice Teacher Identities.” Research on Language and Social Interaction421: 1–19. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wu, Ruey-Jiuan R
2012 “Self-Praising through Reporting: Strategic Use of Two Reporting Practices in Mandarin Conversation.” Discourse Processes491: 622–659. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Yu, Changrong
2013 “Two Interactional Functions of Self-mockery in Everyday English Conversations: A Multimodal Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics501: 1–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Agostini, Gina, Cindi SturtzSreetharan, Amber Wutich, Deborah Williams, Alexandra Brewis & Zhiqiang Cai
2019. Citizen sociolinguistics: A new method to understand fat talk. PLOS ONE 14:5 ► pp. e0217618 ff. Crossref logo
Kim, Mary Shin
2015. Reconstructing misinterpretation and misrepresentation through represented talk in Korean conversation. Text & Talk 35:6 Crossref logo
Page, Ruth
2019. Self-denigration and the mixed messages of ‘ugly’ selfies in Instagram. Internet Pragmatics 2:2 ► pp. 173 ff. Crossref logo
Speer, Susan A.
2019. Reconsidering self‐deprecation as a communication practice. British Journal of Social Psychology 58:4 ► pp. 806 ff. Crossref logo
SturtzSreetharan, Cindi L., Gina Agostini, Alexandra A. Brewis & Amber Wutich
2019. Fat talk: A citizen sociolinguistic approach. Journal of Sociolinguistics 23:3 ► pp. 263 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.